posted January 13, 2007 22:37
The Famous Druid dares Steen to prove he's man enough to keep his promise.

--------------------If you watch 'The History Of NASA' backwards, it's about a space agency that has no manned spaceflight capability, then does low-orbit flights, then lands on the Moon.Posts: 10681 | From: Melbourne, Australia | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged

quote:Originally posted by Stereo: At tihs point of the discussion, I feel compelled to quote from Gandalf: "Deserve to die? Of course he does. Many people that live deserve to die and many people that died deserve to live. Can you give them their life back? So don't be so quick to give death." (Or something along. A translation from hazy memory of a translation can't be accurate.)

Close. "Many that live deserve death. Some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death and judgement."</major Tolkien-nerd>

--------------------And it's one, two, three / On the wrong side of the lee / What were you meant for? / What were you meant for?- The DecemberistsPosts: 7670 | From: the lab | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged

posted January 14, 2007 16:01
Part I: I Use Facts. Anti-US Arguments Use Innuendo

quote: January 13, 2007, 15:58:Facts and logic don't enter into the equation at all.

Here's an example of Innuendo against the US and Australia.

quote: Topic: saddam dead? (December 30, 2006, 00:34)For years afterwards, he enjoyed the warm (and military) support of the USA and Australia.

If this statement had been made with facts, it would be:

quote: For years afterwards, 00.59% (less than 1%) of Saddam's military came from the warm support of the US, and Australia provided 00.00% of Saddam's equipment.

I provided facts about who armed Saddam -- USSR, France, and China accounted for 80% of his weapons (January 04, 2007, 14:25).

Part II: Questions That Anti-US People Will Not Answer

quote: January 13, 2007, 15:58Argument is pointless as he will not engage, or answer any of your points

I promise to give a rebuttal to a "point" in this thread (see Part III). However, I've got questions from years ago that I know Anti-US people will not answer. I'll quote myself and put the questions in bold so you don't miss them:

quote: Topic: saddam dead? (ASM65816 - January 03, 2007, 15:10)

Some of you are very openly against the death penalty, case in point Saddam Hussein.So far one of the main comments about Saddam is "he kept the peace." However, it's generally believed that he killed as many as 300,000 Iraqis.

How many thousands of people should the ruler of a country be allowed to kill "for keeping peace"?

I ask because there are so many that didn't believe Saddam had done enough to be removed from power.

Then there's the massacres in Darfur, but no one demands the execution or removal of their leaders.

If you meekly accept the slaughter of hundreds of thousands by corrupt governments, why do you complain so loudly when one man with well-known "crimes against humanity" is executed?

Part III: US Support to Iraq a Crime?

quote: January 13, 2007, 14:49Mr 65816 believes that a crime is a crime, no matter who the victim is...... but a crime is not a crime when the USA is "supporting the enemy of my enemy".

The statement is innuendo, but "supporting the enemy of my enemy" must refer to US support to Iraq in the 1980s.

Rebuttal: The US relations with Iraq and actions against Iran were justified by an Iranian act of war.

quote: An attack on a foreign embassy or consulate, by international law, is considered an invasion of that nation. It is an act of war.

Fact: The US embassy in Tehran was seized by Iranians on November 4, 1979. There were 66 Americans taken hostage, and Iran did not release all hostages until January 20, 1981 (444 days in captivity).

Conclusion: The Iranian government supported an act of war against the US, therefore the US could have legitimately responded with full-scale war against Iran.

Notes (not required as part of a logical proof):

Alliances can be used (and have been) to fight enemy nations without deploying one's own troops.

A US alliance with any enemy at war with Iran (at that time) would have been a rational and open option.

Alliances are not criminal acts (in and of themselves).

Part IV: Don't Claim to Know Me If You Admit Ignoring What I Say

quote: January 13, 2007, 15:58I just don't know, and care even less....Insults only encourage him, he has the hide of a rhino, and positively delights in how much he is despised....The only change that I have noticed is that recently he mentions the UN oil for food scandal less, which might indicate that he is at least aware .....

In political arguments I respond to propaganda, outright lies, and grossly misleading statements. I rarely "start the argument."

Do not mistake my (quiet) preference for reading civil discussion over joining bitter "he-said-she-said rants" as a change in political views.

Fact: Iran denies the charges that it has interfered in Iraq or provided weapons to insurgents.

Fact: US troops captured senior officers of Iran's military -- Colonel Abu Amad Davari, and Brigadier General Mohsen Chirazi of the al-Quds Brigade.

Fact: The al-Quds Brigade is active in arming, training and funding militant movements, such as Lebanon's Hezbollah, throughout the Middle East.

Iran is lying about its activities in Iraq.Iran doesn't care that its "support" in Iraq is killing thousands of Iraqis.Iran will continue its (violent) efforts in Iraq.

In case some of you have forgotten: Iran was the country issued a bounty for killing Salman Rushdie on charges of blasphemy, and Iran killed (something like) 150,000 of its own people by marching them through minefields to save the lives of soldiers.

To remind "you" of why the US only mentioned WMD charges against Saddam:

Almost every other charge that could be made against Saddam would require implicating UN members of conspiracy with Saddam. Smuggle $9 billion worth of oil? Someone had to buy it. Bribery? Someone had to take Saddam's "money" (oil actually). Ignore repeated violation of UN resolutions? Someone had to look the other way....If you think UN members would willingly face "public humiliation" so Saddam could be punished, you're sadly mistaken.

I'm not going to bother listing the Saddam related corruption of the UN and member nations. They're well known, they're numerous, and I've stated them many times before. The defense argument for Saddam is a lot like this:

quote: Prosecution: He's committed perjury. Defense: But not first degree murder.... Prosecution: He's committed armed robbery. Defense: But not first degree murder.... Prosecution: He's committed rape. Defense: But not first degree murder.... Prosecution: He's committed assault with a deadly weapon. Defense: But not first degree murder....

... and on, and on, and on.

--------------------Once a proud programmer of Apple II's, he now spends his days and nights in cheap dives fraternizing with exotic dancers....Posts: 1035 | From: Third rock from sun. | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged

posted January 14, 2007 17:02
ASM:I have difficulty following your posts, largely because of the 'style' that you use in cutting, pasting, quoting and bolding the comments. Sometimes I cannot fathom your sources for quotes, either because I'm not reading your posts correctly or because they are missing.

I wonder sometimes why you don't compose your posts using the conventional methodolgy available to us all via the UBB software here. Admittedly others tweak things a bit also, but usually only in minor ways.

As you know already, some of your views are rather unpopular with several of the regular posting members around here, but again, I wonder if part of that is not brought on by your posting 'style' as much as the content?

Hope this helps.

gg

--------------------I don't know what I was thinking... it seemed like a good idea at the time.Posts: 3752 | From: Pluto, no matter what you call it, is still my home. | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged

posted January 15, 2007 00:08
I went surfing using Mrs Druid's mac, which doesn't have the ASM filter installed, and I just couldn't let this one pass without comment. I promise I won't be making a habit of it.

As far as I can tell, there are 3 key points to ASM's latest posting...

1. Saddam was an evil murderous dictator.

I quite agree.

2. The USA supplied Saddam with biological and chemical weapons to use against the Kurds, as well as Iranian civilian and military targets, but that doesn't count, because Russia, China, France, and the Duchy of Grand Fenwick helped him out as well.

This is otherwise known as the "I'm still a virgin, because I haven't slept with as many people as that whore who works down by the docks" argument.

The US government helped Saddam commit crimes against humanity, providing a long list of co-conspirators in no way lessens that guilt.

3. Those who disapprove of US support for Saddam's massacres should answer a whole swag of questions to justify their support for Saddam.

This one made me laugh out loud, and made reading the whole incoherent rant worth while. Congratulations ASM, you've set a whole new benchmark for illogic.

/me wanders off to find an ASM-filtered PC to surf with...

--------------------If you watch 'The History Of NASA' backwards, it's about a space agency that has no manned spaceflight capability, then does low-orbit flights, then lands on the Moon.Posts: 10681 | From: Melbourne, Australia | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged

quote: January 15, 2007 00:08As far as I can tell, there are 3 key points to ASM's latest posting...

1. Saddam was an evil murderous dictator.

I quite agree.

Ok, so knowing that he had as many as 300,000 murdered, how many hundreds of thousands would he have to murder before being removed from power?

Of course you can use the "Monday Morning Quarterback" act and say: "I would have stopped him at 301,000."

Point 2:

quote: 2. The USA supplied Saddam with biological and chemical weapons ..., but that doesn't count, because Russia, China, France, and the Duchy of Grand Fenwick helped him out as well.

This is otherwise known as the "I'm still a virgin, because I haven't slept with as many people as that whore who works down by the docks" argument.

The US government helped Saddam commit crimes against humanity, providing a long list of co-conspirators in no way lessens that guilt.

Basically, you're saying "Quantity doesn't matter."

Using "Quantity Doesn't Matter" as a rule: Given a woman that has slept with 184 people, and a woman that has slept with two people -- they are both "dirty whores." (Note: For every $1 of US weapons Saddam got, he got $92 of weapons from the USSR.)

In courts of law, quantity matters -- grand larceny does not carry the same penalty as shoplifting.

Point 3:

quote: 3. Those who disapprove of US support for Saddam's massacres should answer a whole swag of questions to justify their support for Saddam.

Congratulations ASM, you've set a whole new benchmark for illogic.

You're using "justify their support for Saddam" as a "Straw-man."

My real question has been: Why was Saddam's "punishment" almost non-existent? How much more would he have to do before being treated like Slobodan Milosevic (accused of Serbian massacres)?

The question above is not the same as "Why did you support Saddam?"

Second, if Saddam had been put on trial back in 2002 (in a manner like Milosevic's trial), I wouldn't care how much you "supported" Saddam. You could march in the streets with a "Save Saddam" sign, every day, for 10 hours a day -- and I wouldn't care.

Going back to #2: You basically say that everyone is equally "guilty."

Doesn't this imply that everyone deserves equal condemnation?

When you post 10 verbal attacks on the US, equal means we should see you make 10 verbal attacks on Russia, 10 verbal attacks on France, 10 verbal attacks on China, and 10 verbal attacks on the United Nations.

Then again, by your "logic" at #2: two posts which condemn Russia, France, China, and the United Nations would be equal to 184 posts against the US.

--------------------Once a proud programmer of Apple II's, he now spends his days and nights in cheap dives fraternizing with exotic dancers....Posts: 1035 | From: Third rock from sun. | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged

quote:The US government helped Saddam commit crimes against humanity, providing a long list of co-conspirators in no way lessens that guilt.

Basically, you're saying "Quantity doesn't matter."

Using "Quantity Doesn't Matter" as a rule: Given a woman that has slept with 184 people, and a woman that has slept with two people -- they are both "dirty whores."

No, but neither is a virgin.

quote:In courts of law, quantity matters -- grand larceny does not carry the same penalty as shoplifting.

But murder is murder, whether you're a lone assassin, or a member of a lynch mob.

I can just picture a criminal trial involving ASM...

Prosecutor: Mr ASM, the prosecution charges you with the importation of 5 kg of cocaine, how do you plead?

ASM: Not guilty. There's thousands of kg imported every year and I only had 5 kg, so that shouldn't count, and there's massacres going on in Darfur, why don't you prosecute them instead, and what about all the corruption in the UN, and...

/me enables the ASM filter.

--------------------If you watch 'The History Of NASA' backwards, it's about a space agency that has no manned spaceflight capability, then does low-orbit flights, then lands on the Moon.Posts: 10681 | From: Melbourne, Australia | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged

Point 2: Which Is Worse: Committing Murder or Providing Something That Kills?

quote: No, but neither is a virgin.

Your "virgin" analogy is absolutely worthless, unless you believe countries selling machine-guns, mortars, mines, tanks, bombers, and other weapons have no idea that the weapons will be used to kill people.

The way you attack the US for providing weapons to Iraq, it appears you believe that providing weapons is a greater crime than the actual murder of hundreds of thousands of people.

--------------------Once a proud programmer of Apple II's, he now spends his days and nights in cheap dives fraternizing with exotic dancers....Posts: 1035 | From: Third rock from sun. | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged

--------------------If you watch 'The History Of NASA' backwards, it's about a space agency that has no manned spaceflight capability, then does low-orbit flights, then lands on the Moon.Posts: 10681 | From: Melbourne, Australia | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged

A statement was made that "Saddam enjoyed warm and military support from Australia."

When I found references for arms trade to Iraq, Australia was listed as $0.00 support to Saddam.

You won't prove anything to me if you fail to support a statement, while I have information from a reliable source that indicates you are absolutely wrong.

Point 3: Theories and Laws

quote: January 15, 2007, 12:11But murder is murder....

... a long list of co-conspirators in no way lessens that guilt.

FYI: If you state something as being a "law" (or theory, or rule, or whatever you want to call it), it's useless if it only works "for one case." Stated another way, a theory is disproved if observations disagree with predictions.

So far, the overwhelming "observation" is that the US was the primary means for Saddam's crimes against humanity.

However, if this "murder is murder" rule is applied beyond the US, over two dozen countries are "complicit in Saddam's crimes against humanity." If the "murder is murder" is applied to the world (to Bosnia, Cambodia, etc.) and not just Iraq -- then every country in the world is "complicit in crimes against humanity."

Your "theory/law" proves:

quote: Country A = Country B = Country C = ... = Country n

(which contradicts your own observation, because you don't observe wrong-doing by all countries)

However, mathematical law from many scientists over thousands of years states:

quote: Two mathematical objects are equal if and only if they are precisely the same in every way.

Logic and math law say "different" means "not equal" -- if you can't work within this rule, don't expect me to accept your "proof."

Point 4: Just "Yes" or "No" Would Be Fine

quote: January 10, 2007, 15:16I've noticed that about the only 'debating technique' he knows is redirection.

When I ask questions, certain people say stuff like "he only knows redirection" or "it's not logical," instead of answering the questions. My advice is to be more subtle in your hypocrisy.

Some of you keep saying how much smarter you are than I am, but you never answer questions. If they can't be answered "yes" or "no," I'm willing to read a paragraph or two for something that makes sense. After all, you're geniuses and can explain inconceivably complex problems in one or two paragraphs.

Let me give you a good example of "lame" (South Park terminology):

quote: Genius: That guy knows nothing. I'm a genius. I'm not going to answer any questions. I don't have to explain anything because everyone knows I'm right.

Ready for the Questions?

quote: 1. Are murder and murder the same? Clarification: Is it murder if a knife is used? Is it murder if a gun is used? Is it murder if poison is used? Is there a case where it's not murder if a particular weapon is used?

In one case, the AK-47's are sold to a country that tries to make the tallest stack of AK-47's in the world. Ten people die while trying to stack the weapons.

Note: I had to make this up because I couldn't find weapons sold to armies under the condition that people wouldn't be shot with them.

In another case, the AK-47's are sold to a dictator that has 280,000 people shot.

quote: 3. How many thousands of people should the ruler of a country be allowed to kill "for keeping peace"? For example, if Saddam got to kill 300,000 -- then shouldn't Milosevic have been allowed to kill 300,000?

--------------------Once a proud programmer of Apple II's, he now spends his days and nights in cheap dives fraternizing with exotic dancers....Posts: 1035 | From: Third rock from sun. | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged

quote: January 18, 2007 18:04There's more to 'support' than selling weapons.For example: Sending warships to escort convoy to/from Iraqi ports could be seen as 'support'.

Fine, that's support, but it's also temporary and easily taken away. However, a jet fighter or a main battle tank is "permanent" and difficult to take away.

Second, considering it was claimed that Saddam owed Russia an estimated $4 billion in 2000 -- he wasn't getting anything for free. What oil money didn't cover, he had to take under debt.

I wasn't witness any US/Iraq deals in the 1980's, but my guess is Saddam "bought" US support by "making Iran pay" (and I don't mean with gold, or oil, or dollars). As I said before, Iran holding American hostages for 444 days was easily an act of war and gave the US serious motivation to punish Iran.

Point 2: Quantity Matters

quote: That doesn't change the fact that the USA did (something )

How much did the US do for Saddam? Let's imagine a conversation where someone needs money:

quote: Saddam: Dude, I need $100 real bad. US: Sure, I'll help you. Here's $0.59! Saddam: Wow, thanks! Now I only need $99.41! US: No problem. Of course, I may need you to do me a favor or two.

FYI: If you need $100 and a "friend" gives you $0.59 under the condition that you have to do a favor -- that's not a friend.

You can argue that someone who gives you $0.59 is the same as someone that gives you $80, but I'm not buying into that story.

It was a well known fact that Saddam was receiving materials banned under UN resolutions.

Saddam wasn't telling anyone what banned materials he was receiving because he'd have to confess to violating UN resolutions.

The countries providing Saddam with banned materials weren't telling anyone what banned materials they were selling because they'd have to confess to violating UN resolutions.

Knowing this, assuming there's no WMD in the 99% of contraband that wasn't caught -- is VERY wishful thinking.

Repeating myself again.....

quote: Almost every other charge that could be made against Saddam would require implicating UN members of conspiracy with Saddam. Smuggle $9 billion worth of oil? Someone had to buy it. Bribery? Someone had to take Saddam's "money" (oil actually). Ignore repeated violation of UN resolutions? Someone had to look the other way....If you think UN members would willingly face "public humiliation" so Saddam could be punished, you're sadly mistaken.

No one answered my last three questions, but I'll ask three more.

1. Why would high ranking United Nations officials admit to accepting bribes from Saddam so they could face the same charges as he would?

2. Why would the Russian government admit to supplying Saddam with forbidden weapons so they could face the same charges of violating UN sanctions that Saddam would?

3. Why would the Chinese government admit to buying smuggled Iraqi oil in violation of UN trade sanctions so they could face the same criminal charges as Saddam?

Then there's the fact that Saddam was paying $25,000 per suicide bombing to support terrorism against the Jewish people.

If the police in your neighborhood were like the United Nations' enforcement of its resolutions, arrests would only be made:

When the charge was first degree murder, and

The accused turned himself in at the jail, and

The accused confessed and surrendered all evidence against himself.

Point 4: Absurd Conspiracy Theories

quote: ... used moral high ground and democracy as an excuse for raiding Saddam's palace and disappearing with his famed treasury.

Saddam's "famed treasury"?

So you think this is what happened?

The US wanted "Saddam's famed treasury."

Then the US sent 150,000 troops to take it.

Then the US troops got the treasure.

Then the US decided to "hang out" for 3 or 4 years so people could shoot at our troops.

quote: Now, tell me that Russia gave Saddam 1000 Ak47s and Ive got to ask the guy, Is Russia fucking Iraq up right now?

*** WARNING: Rhetorical Questions ***

Do you have any clue why Russia sold weapons to Saddam? Do you know why Saddam bought weapons? (Hint: It has to do with killing.) Do you think Russia didn't know what Saddam did to his own people?

Let's imagine:

quote: Saddam: I'd like weapons. Russia: Any particular reason? Saddam: Oh, I'll probably kill 300,000 of my own people, and a bunch of others too. Russia: That's funny. A few decades ago we killed several million of our own people. Saddam: How much is this going to cost? Russia: Around $21 billion, but you can put some on credit. Do you need us to kill people for you? Saddam: No thanks, I've got my own soldiers and secret police.

Russia loved Saddam. He paid good money for weapons, and was a good partner in the Food for Oil scandal. If Saddam bought $50 billion of Russian weapons, they would have been happier, and if Saddam killed 800,000 Iraqis, they wouldn't care any more or less.

quote: But while the others left, US came back and anally raped Iraq, and stole its wallet to boot.

Do you think at all? Iran backs the Shiites to kill Sunnis. Syria backs Saddam's Bathist party (Sunni) to kill Shiites? Al-Qaida wants a civil war.

Right now it's "Muslims" that want to see Iraq covered in blood and rotting bodies. I forgot, are you someone that says "I'm a real Muslim, but the Arabs aren't real Muslims"?

Point 5: Making Up Stuff and Saying "ASM Said"

quote: 3. Disapprove of Saddams death = Support Saddam, whoa, who let the hillbilly in. No strawmans please.

Someone says "I hate America because the US lies." When I confront them with facts about the lies of all the other countries, there's no hatred toward the other countries.

There are two obvious explanations for statements like these:

The person hates America, but is lying about the reason why (ie. it's not about US lies), or

The person is a hypocrite (happy with the lies of countries he likes, but hates every "lie" of the US).

--------------------Once a proud programmer of Apple II's, he now spends his days and nights in cheap dives fraternizing with exotic dancers....Posts: 1035 | From: Third rock from sun. | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged

quote:I wasn't witness any US/Iraq deals in the 1980's, but my guess is Saddam "bought" US support by "making Iran pay".

BS.Actually US was worried on both Iraq and Iran becoming too powerful, and in a brilliant Kissinger-like stroke supprted one than the other making sure that the conflict dragged on enough to reduce both potencies down to more acceptable levels.

Then US loved having around a secular dictator to counter the religious Iran, ad truned a blind eye to his massacres.

quote:How much did the US do for Saddam? Let's imagine a conversation where someone needs money:

You again missed the point. Russia isnt invading others selling itself as the country of truth and freedom. US is selling itself as the leader to be followed, yet helped Saddam? Russia isnt invading for ficticious reasons either.

Even if all USA´s help amounted to helping Saddam Hussein´s mother cross the road, its still too much.

quote: [*]It was a well known fact that Saddam was receiving materials banned *snip load of BS already declared to be wrong by the US administration and Pres Bush himself * -- is VERY wishful thinking.

Here´s wishfull thinking that ASM would read the news once in a while. What cave have you been sleeping in?

Bush officially said, THERE WERE NO WMDS. Nothing found. They were wrong. As of January 12, 2005 the search for ficticious WMDs have been called off and the government´s position?

The broad picture emerging from the investigation to date suggests that, whatever its desire, Iraq did not possess the wherewithal to build a forbidden armory on anything like the scale it had before the 1991 Persian Gulf War."

"Turns Out, We Were Wrong"

Even the US administration, after invading Iraq for these very reasons, accepts that they were wrong, Im surprised that the guy who keeps passing off random facts about other countries as points still grasps at the WMD arguement.

quote:Then there's the fact that Saddam was paying $25,000 per suicide bombing to support terrorism against the Jewish people.

Yeah, and until the Kuwaiti invasion, US pretty much supported Saddam, and until today supports dictators in Middle East like in Saudi Arabia

quote:If the police in your neighborhood were like the United Nations' enforcement of its resolutions, arrests would only be made

With US breaking every resolution it voted on over Iraq, its called follow the leader. Shall we start arresting now?

quote:Saddam's "famed treasury"?

I forgot, you dont read the news

quote:Do you have any clue why Russia sold weapons to Saddam?

Because US did it

quote:Do you know why Saddam bought weapons? (Hint: It has to do with killing.)

Because US showed it was ok to sell even chemical weapons to him.

quote:Do you think Russia didn't know what Saddam did to his own people?

As much as USA knew

quote:Let's imagine: Saddam: I'd like chemical weapons. USA: Any particular reason? Saddam: Oh, I'll probably kill 300,000 of my own people, and a bunch of others too. USA: That's funny. A few decades ago we killed several million of our own indeginious people. Saddam: How much is this going to cost? USA: AHey its free, just kill some Iranians while youre at it!. Do you need us to kill people for you? Saddam: No thanks, I've got my own soldiers and secret police.

*fixed that*

quote:Russia loved Saddam.

So did US, up to the Kuwaiti invasion.

quote:Do you think at all?

Obviosuly more than you.

quote:Right now it's "Muslims" that want to see Iraq covered in blood and rotting bodies.

Oh yeah, one two-bit dictator managed to hold the Sunni-Shiite war in check and the most powerful chimp in the world cant? Laughable.

quote:Someone says "I hate America because the US lies." When I confront them with facts about the lies of all the other countries, there's no hatred toward the other countries.

See the mistake there?

Imagine that, we´re talking about how LOST sucks, and you come and tell us how Heroes suck.

We´re talking about flaws in OSX, and you come talking about Unix flaws.

No matter how fervently you try to change the subject, the flaws in OSx wont dissapear, nor will USA´s love relationship with Saddam.

No matter how much you try changing the subject, we´re talking about US. Cant take the heat? get out of the oven honey.

quote:More strawmans

[QUOTE] Does anyone still read that irritating imbecile's drivel? I'm just curious, because he keeps talking, and I know I've got him blocked out, and don't even see what he says anymore. [QUOTE]

Sorry, I just want to see what hilarious diversions he´ll find to avoid talking about the Bush administration and its errors.

posted January 20, 2007 15:28
Point 1: If You Have to Stretch It This Far ....

quote: January 19, 2007 12:28You again missed the point. ....... Even if all USA´s help amounted to helping Saddam Hussein´s mother cross the road, its still too much.

What kind of lunatic, hair-brained statement is that? (rhetorical question)

When you have to use a lie like "238 is the same as 21,945" to support your point of view -- your're wrong.

If you really feel this way and you've ever stolen something like a pencil, you should turn yourself in to the police so they can lock you in jail for 10 years (because you're the same as someone that stole $20,000).

Point 2: Time and Consequences Matter

quote: ASM: Why would the Chinese government admit to buying smuggled Iraqi oil in violation of UN trade sanctions so they could face the same criminal charges as Saddam?

quote: from "The Washington Post" February 17, 2005The Bush administration directly abetted Jordan's efforts to build up its strategic reserves with smuggled Iraqi oil in the weeks before the United States invaded Iraq in March 2003.

#include sarcasm.hWow, it's impossible that this was a move to prevent a massive oil shortage in Jordan which would cause economic collapse and send the country of Jordan into anarchy and chaos just as Saddam's regime was being crushed. What an evil Bush plan.

Once again you completely ignore orders of magnitude:

1 year = 52 weeks

Saddam's oil smuggling and violations of UN resolutions: about 10 years

quote: Anti-US: The right thing to do would be blockade the illicit flow of Iraqi oil into Jordan, allowing economic collapse, anarchy, and chaos to ensue. Then a "cease and desist" letter should have been sent to Saddam telling him to stop his decade of criminal acts while under UN sanctions.

Point 3: Uh ... thanks for the laugh

quote: ASM: Do you think at all?

(reply) January 19, 2007, 12:28Obviosuly more than you.

Maybe the word "Obviously" would work better than "Obviosuly." Hint: Spell-Check.

Point 4: Dealing with "Bad" Countries

quote: January 19, 2007, 12:28 and until today supports dictators in Middle East like in Saudi Arabia

What if the US refused to give trade or diplomatic benefits to countries/governments that:

are not democracies with powers balanced between executive, legislative, and judicial branches?

do not place term limits on government positions of power?

have a past where international agreements were breached?

have a past with "crimes against humanity" (regardless of wars or person ruling)?

If the US did not "tolerate" any country that failed to live up the values in our Constitution -- we would not trade with any other country, and we would not have diplomatic relations with any other country.

The US does have limits to how much it will tolerate from other countries.

quote: Yeah, and until the Kuwaiti invasion, US pretty much supported Saddam....

When Saddam invaded Kuwait, it proved that he was a Complete Freakin' Psycho.

_COMPLETE_FREAKIN_PSYCHO_ was far in excess of _LIMIT_OF_US_TOLERANCE_.

As a result, the US took extreme punitive action against Saddam, and

Even after Saddam was driven from Kuwait, the US continued punitive measures against Saddam.

I think some of you are lying when you say stuff like "1 is the same as 94," but if that's what you really believe then you have no concept of what limits are and how they are applied.

Point 5: Weapons

quote: ASM: Why would the Russian government admit to supplying Saddam with forbidden weapons so they could face the same charges of violating UN sanctions that Saddam would?

First, my question was about the time period AFTER Saddam proved he was a "Complete Freakin' Psycho" and DURING the period of UN sanctions. Russian weapons were being sold to Saddam throughout the decade of UN sanctions.

The article you cite is BEFORE the UN sanctions were placed on Iraq. Therefore, it's irrelevant to Russian violations during the period of UN resolutions against Iraq.

quote: from "The Washington Post" December 30, 2002Everybody in the Arab world told us that the best way to deal with Saddam was to develop a set of economic and commercial relationships that would have the effect of moderating his behavior.

This is what is known as "the carrot" -- as opposed to "the stick."

quote: from "The Washington Post" December 30, 2002History will demonstrate that this was a miscalculation.

Maybe "Precrime" (term from "Minority Report") should have been used: hit them with "the stick" before they go too far.

Anyway, let's look at what else is in the article.

quote: from "The Washington Post" December 30, 2002Assistant Secretary of State Richard W. Murphy wrote in a September 1988 memorandum that addressed the chemical weapons question. "We believe that economic sanctions will be useless or counterproductive to influence the Iraqis."

National Security Decision Directive 114 of Nov. 26, 1983 (according to former U.S. officials) stated that the United States would do "whatever was necessary and legal" to prevent Iraq from losing the war with Iran.

The United States did not have diplomatic relations with either Baghdad or Tehran. U.S. officials had almost as little sympathy for Hussein's dictatorial brand of Arab nationalism as for the Islamic fundamentalism espoused by Iran's Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.

First, "the stick" wouldn't work on Saddam.

Second, "don't let Iran win" had an extremely high priority.

Third ... oh, so you realize that the US didn't like Saddam or Khomeini.

quote: Actually US was worried on both Iraq and Iran becoming too powerful, and ... supported one than the other ... to reduce both potencies down to more acceptable levels.

Were you contradicting yourself? I thought you said:

"The US supported Saddam to make him powerful." -and-

"The US was reducing Saddam's power to more acceptable levels."

Looking back over 20 years ago, I guess both Saddam and Khomeini were bloody nut-cases, and we should have nuked Iran and Iraq until they were vast expanses of radioactive glass.... Oh well, "hindsight is 20/20," and we can't change the past.

I have better things to do right now, so I'll leave this post as is.

--------------------Once a proud programmer of Apple II's, he now spends his days and nights in cheap dives fraternizing with exotic dancers....Posts: 1035 | From: Third rock from sun. | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged